pillock

I kind of hope that in the long run the game will match the current season, with various effects. The moon cycles are supposed to based off real, current data, aren't they? In any case, I don't think that the seasonal 'setting' of the game really matters much this early in development. If it's going to be permanently the same time of year, then maybe you have a point, though. I would hope it's not the case, though.

No, that's a fucking brilliant idea. I want it.

Even the hippopotamuses?

I've found this thread ejtremely enyojable.

Whatever, they need to do something with the melee combat. It's fucking awful as is.

There should be an abandoned zoo. And assorted escaped animals roaming the countryside - you know, lions, elephants, crocodiles, baboons, flamingos... that sort of thing.

Player is held up by bandits Player insults bandits and doesn't cooperate with hold up Bandits execute player. What exactly did he expect?

Given that there is no cutlery in DayZ yet , except for kitchen knives, how are you supposed to eat something like stew? With a shovel? And no, you can't just drink it straight from the cooking pot - you'd burn your face off.

As I said earlier in the thread, the devs haven't implemented specific torture mechanics - they have implemented the ability to wound people (necessary for decent fighting mechanics), the ability to force feed (necessary for certain medical actions), and the ability to restrain (necessary for arresting and holding people up). There are good, solid, logical gameplay reasons for these things, and they're not terribly controversial in themselves, given the current state of our entertainment industry's morality-o-meter. Things like rape have no place in the game for any reason - you cannot justify it for any gameplay reason whatsoever. Therefore, isn't analogous with the improvised 'torture' that players can attempt in DayZ. But perhaps you're right: perhaps you shouldn't be able to force-feed conscious players (only to give food/water to revive people); perhaps you shouldn't even be able to restrain people. I'm not sure. I think the way the game is now is pretty harmless, but I see no reason for the devs to go any further with that sort of thing.

So, how would you expect this to work? If you restrain someone, you can middle-mouse on them and select the "rape" option? Then there's a pre-rendered animation that the devs have created? If anyone seriously thinks that idea will or should get anywhere near this or any other game, then they are stupider than pigshit. Children won't make it into the game in any form, because there's just no logical reason to include them - therefore it avoids any related "decency" issues. As for cannibalism, you could argue a case for that, given the scenario. But dismembering corpses? A little pointless, really. I'd have thought you'd collect meat 'cuts' in the same way you currently do from animal carasses - there's no dismembering of animals in the game, so why should players be able to do it to people? If you can justify something for gameplay purposes, then fair enough. But gratuity for gratuity's sake is childish and pathetic.

I think there's a fairly simple answer here: It should absolutely be possible to injure people by shooting or hitting their limbs - and this is not necessarily "torture". It should also be possible to feed people, since you need to do this in certain medical situations. It should also be possible to restrain people, since this is another part of the gameplay and a useful/relevant option in the scenario. If people choose to combine these separate actions to simulate "torture", then that's their doing - it's not an explicit gameplay design. Adding rape would be an intentional and wholly unnecessary, tasteless, offensive feature with no defensible gameplay advantages. Similarly, adding children is not really necessary for gameplay, since NPC humans are not likely to feature, and the ability to play as a child is also not a useful addition. The only issue I can think of that straddles the line is in regards to bodily waste - it is relevant to gameplay and the scenario to add faecal pollution that affects hygiene and disease mechanics; however, it leads to the possibility of players force-feeding shit to their captives, which is a pretty unsavoury prospect that many people would find too offensive to warrant inclusion.

I'm terribly sorry to hear about machete master. Hope he calms down eventually.

Chaps, chaps, chaps. No need for the vitriol. Perhaps there are two types of police in Chernarus? Like the National Police and the City Police, or something like that? Maybe one type of police handles stuff like burglaries, civil disorder and traffic, while the other type of police handles putting out fires?

They need to fix that, then! Wild animals are impossible to get close to, unless you trap them. Deer, especially, cos they're so timid and flighty, and they can run like fuck! They should be difficult to kill, even with a gun!

Pardonwhat? Believable that a person (even a zombified/infected one) can run down a rabbit or a deer?

Horses can eat grass. How do you think they survived before humans started domesticating them?

I think they should leave zombies the same until they can fix them properly. There's no real point in making incremental changes when they're still glitchy and crap after each change - just leave them the same so we can get used to their behaviour, then work on them behind the scenes until they're substantially fixed and implement the changes wholesale. It'd be less annoying that way. It's just a pain in the arse having to re-learn new ways to kill the still-buggy-and-irritating zombies every few weeks, and it doesn't really move the game forward, in my opinion.

As the game stands, there's no real point in maxing out your inventory-slot potential. You can survive very easily with 6 slots in your trousers and 4 in your coat, using civilian clothes alone. You don't need a tac-vest, or even a backpack, really. Side arm, ammo, binoculars, can-opener, rags is all you need to carry. Food and drink can be found abundantly and consumed on the spot. The addition of hunting will require more equipment to be carried, but until they adjust loot balance you won't need to even do that if you're just looking to survive and defend yourself - it's just an amusing side-track. I prefer to move around without visible weapons, because I find it lends itself better to having friendly interactions - and if you don't even have a back-pack, people assume you're unarmed (though if you're very far in land, people get suspicious as to why you haven't found a backpack yet!). So, for me, fewer slots and civilian clothes is functionality.

f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f

You will be able to be in time.

Maybe because it's a shit idea?

No wonder development progress is so slow: Dean spends all day trying to farm subsidies for transporting mail from Fardington to Frenninghall-on-sea.

Well, I think it should be kept fairly intuitive, so you don't have to learn lots of abstract combinations of items/processes for performing what is actually a fairly simple task - keep bashing something until it breaks! Padlocks and chains, as well as barricading material, could come in a variety of types and strengths, with the tougher ones being rarer. Different tools/melee weapons could also have characteristics that make them better at performing certain tasks. I think it also needs to combined with other game-mechanics, such as the health status and physics, so that you expend energy more realistically and can move larger objects around. In terms of health, your "food" and "energy" level should be separated. Eating could still give a boost to your energy, but only up to a point - so that overfilling yourself actually reduces your energy. All physical activity, from walking, running and fighting through to lifting weighty items, cutting wood, erecting barricades, crafting, and knocking stuff down with a sledgehammer, would expend varying amounts of energy - and once you're knackered, you become feeble until you're sufficiently rested. That way, attacking a barricaded or locked structure would be time- and energy consuming. This not only gives more value to team-work, but it allows a variety of ways to get creative with barricading. You could use a vehicle to drag/push a heavy object (like another vehicle or a large rock or tree-trunk) in front of a doorway, so nobody else can open it unless they can shift the obstruction. Alternatively, you could barricade and booby-trap a series of lock-up garages with explosives, only hiding your loot in one of them - someone wanting to gain access would have to spend time and effort getting in, only to be blown up when they eventually succeed, thereby discouraging others from making the same attempt. I don't think this sort of thing requires much gamey abstraction: it does, however, require game mechanics that are complex enough to handle intuitive decision-making.

The only thing I really don't want is impenetrable combination locks. Padlocks and chains, which can be broken open using a crowbar or axe are fine, but nothing impenetrable - and that includes barricades. I want to be able to smash my way into someone's place, but I also think we ought to be able to set booby-traps to 'discourage' this sort of behaviour. I dislike the idea of loot or territory being "owned" by any particular character or group. You can barricade a structure, but it shouldn't be "yours" - it should just be a barricaded structure. Ownership could come from having the correct key for a padlock, or from knowing how to enter the structure without setting off the booby-trap.

Didn't Dean say (at Rezzed?) that they were aiming to make everything persistent? So, you drop a gun or an ammo box or medkits or food or whatever in some random bush, and it stays there until someone else stumbles across it, or it degrades to nothing? No need for tents as a storage unit - unless they give a bonus to stored items within against degredation?